Repeal of Obamacare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

You could try reading the Constitution. Old dead white guys talked a lot of this stuff over when they wrote it.

---

The 2nd amendment statement came from the Constitution. " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say nation or country it says free state.

I'm aware of that, Free. You might want to read the discussions of the time, or any of the recent Supreme Court decisions that go over the matter, if you have an honest interest in the subject. It's not rocket science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Might be worth reading the actual decision, instead of lobbing accusations of being "a damn fool judge" or an "activist judge" or "peeing on the campfire".

I believe I provided a link to it above. Perhaps Juanita should have a look.

---

Thanks for the link, Bae but I'll simply take Juanita Jean's word for it since she also professes to be a arm-chair constitutional lawyer. BTW, she is married to a lawyer like yourself (if memory serves me). :laff:

In Texas we consider statements like "peeing on the fire" and "damn fool judge" just Texas humor, Molly Ivans style (credited with applying the nickname "Shrub" to George W. Bush), because sometimes you gotta laugh instead of crying. >8)

I guess we'll have to wait on the Supremes to give us their decision. I can't wait to read Clarence Thomas' decision! :|(

Peace

If I am not mistaken Clarence Thomas has only written on decision and that was probably written by Scalia. Even though in most cases I don't agree with the conservative members of the court I do respect their intellect. Thomas is another case he has no intellect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freein05

If I am not mistaken Clarence Thomas has only written on decision and that was probably written by Scalia. Even though in most cases I don't agree with the conservative members of the court I do respect their intellect. Thomas is another case he has no intellect.

---

You are mistaken: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Thomas

As for his intellect, Thomas in a strict constitutionalist and libertarian. Many liberals have such high opinions of their own beliefs that it seems only natural to assume people with conflicting opinions simply aren't smart enough to agree with them. Of course, that's complete BS, but whatcha gonna do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

I am a strong believer in states rights. I'm also a strong believer in the free market. It's not an either/or position.
I think we all benefit when you allow competition in commerce. Competition always brings down costs and lack of competition always raises them.

I see no reason to believe that states should not compete among themselves, whether it be for providing a climate condusive to business or to increase its attractiveness to potential residents.

But on top of that, I'm most interested in individual choice. Government, in it's desire to take care of us, should not limit our choices and we should resist it whether it's a state government or a federal government.

---

In this case though, it really is an either/or proposition. Expanding on what freein05 mentioned earlier, if I, a resident of CA, buy a policy from a Louisiana insurer, and later figure out it's a ripoff that doesn't cover anything, is the Louisiana insurance commissioner really going to help me out? After all, I didn't vote for him and can't vote for his competitor in the next election. And that insurer will have undoubtedly given him a nice campaign contribution and probably paid some premium taxes to the state based on these out of state insureds.

That's why we can't buy insurance across state lines. The only real solution to allowing that would be to take away state's rights to regulate insurance by creating a federal insurance commissioner to make sure that no policies were ripoffs.

"As for his intellect, Thomas in a strict constitutionalist and libertarian. Many liberals have such high opinions of their own beliefs that it seems only natural to assume people with conflicting opinions simply aren't smart enough to agree with them. Of course, that's complete BS, but whatcha gonna do?" (Alan)
------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Scalia is a strict Constitutionalist as well, and I don't believe anyone impugns his intellect. Justice Thomas has been a disappointment on the court, as he asks almost no questions, follows Justice Scalia like a lapdog, and has done very little on his own since he was appointed. He's been virtually a nonentity. My disdain for the quality of his work has little to do with his conservatism. I have no such disdain for either Justice Scalia or Justice Roberts, both of whom are quite conservative, but well respected as men of intellect. No such thing can be said for Justice Thomas, IMHO. I can't speak for anyone else.

I also find myself disquieted by the activism and associations of his wife, which seem somehow problematic for the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice who may well sit in judgment on questions that concern organizations and positions on which she has worked. Perhaps legal, but iffy, to me, in an ethical sense. Again, JMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

Justice Scalia is a strict Constitutionalist as well, and I don't believe anyone impugns his intellect. Justice Thomas has been a disappointment on the court, as he asks almost no questions, follows Justice Scalia like a lapdog, and has done very little on his own since he was appointed. He's been virtually a nonentity. My disdain for the quality of his work has little to do with his conservatism. I have no such disdain for either Justice Scalia or Justice Roberts, both of whom are quite conservative, but well respected as men of intellect. No such thing can be said for Justice Thomas, IMHO. I can't speak for anyone else.

---

Perhaps a cursory reading of the 300+ opinions he's written (link provided above) would change your mind. Or perhaps not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

In this case though, it really is an either/or proposition. Expanding on what freein05 mentioned earlier, if I, a resident of CA, buy a policy from a Louisiana insurer, and later figure out it's a ripoff that doesn't cover anything, is the Louisiana insurance commissioner really going to help me out?

---

IMO there are two levels of responsibility here that aren't really being considered. First, the Federal government actually could be very useful in the establishment of minimum legal standards. Across the board levels of coverage that would mandate the absolute minimum levels of coverage a policy could provide.

Second is individual responsibility. As en vogue as it has become to play the consumer as a victim, individuals DO have responsibilities. That's not a very popular position in the age where so many want the government to simply take care of them, but it could help solve a lot of problems if we got back to that. An insurance policy comes with paperwork explaining how it works and what it covers. That's already a law so no need to add more legislation. If a consumer in CA or AK or anywhere else buys a policy from LA or some other "low standard" state without reading it and asking questions, especially for something they depend on as heavily as health insurance, then I would argue that they deserve their fate. Yes, regulation should be in place to curb predatory practices. There are probably things we could learn from the sub-prime mortgage industry. Setting guidelines to help protect individuals should not remove the mantle of responsibility from the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

In this case though, it really is an either/or proposition. Expanding on what freein05 mentioned earlier, if I, a resident of CA, buy a policy from a Louisiana insurer, and later figure out it's a ripoff that doesn't cover anything, is the Louisiana insurance commissioner really going to help me out? After all, I didn't vote for him and can't vote for his competitor in the next election. And that insurer will have undoubtedly given him a nice campaign contribution and probably paid some premium taxes to the state based on these out of state insureds.

That's why we can't buy insurance across state lines. The only real solution to allowing that would be to take away state's rights to regulate insurance by creating a federal insurance commissioner to make sure that no policies were ripoffs.

---

I'm not sure why it would require a federal insurance commissioner to regulate the individual states when state insurance commissioners are already tasked with the responsibility of regulating those insurance products sold within their states.

If any given state is not doing an adequate job of regulating the quality of products sold it seems to me that the caveat emptor doctrine would apply and, theoretically, prevent widescale abuse.

As long as the Supreme Court upholds the current federal court ruling that the government cannot force an individual to purchase a product, it stands to reason that it also cannot force an individual to purchase a product from an unscrupulous company in a state with lax regulation.

The free market is a wonderful thing. It would be a shame to legislate away it's existence.